Motion Debate on "Policy on care for the elderly" (28 June 2006)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the problem of the ageing of the Hong Kong population is getting more and more acute. In 2033, one out of every four persons in Hong Kong will be an elderly person aged 65 or more. This is more than double the existing elderly population. The Liberal Party thinks that the Government should make good use of this period of some 20 years or so to plan well ahead and work out a policy on care for the elderly so that the elderly can enjoy their old age in peace and comfort.

The original motion proposes to implement a policy on care for the elderly which is geared to "healthy ageing". I think the meaning of health is not limited to physical health but mental health as well. With respect to mental health, of course, what the elderly people want most is that their children will spend more time with them. It does not matter what they do, it would be fine if they can be with them. On the other hand, what the community is more concerned about is the problem of elderly abuse and this is something we must do our best to prevent. We must promote the concept of "a feeling of personal worth" among the elderly so that those who are capable can be volunteers and continue to contribute to society with what they have learned in the first half of their life and with what they are good at. Or these old folks can be encouraged to engage in lifelong learning and develop a second career and make them live a colourful old age.

In terms of physical health of the elderly persons, we would of course need to look into a suitable mechanism to prevent the recurrence of incidents like giving the wrong drugs to inmates of the homes for the aged and to ensure that the old people will not be denied health care for lack of means.

Madam President, earlier on the Liberal Party has set up a poverty assistance fund and one of our primary target groups is the poor and lonely elderly persons. For example, some time ago we helped a 74-year-old Mr LAU who had hearing problems. His hearing aid set was not functioning but he could not afford the expenses of a replacement. He came to apply for our fund when he learnt that the Liberal Party had set up such a fund. Finally, his application was approved and he could purchase a digital hearing aid. Now he can talk and mix well with people and enjoy social life again. He can listen to the radio and watch television and know what is going on in society. Since then there has been a great change in his life for the better.

Madam President, as we all know, resources in society are limited and so they must be used well. If an egalitarian approach is adopted regardless of whether the potential recipients are financially capable or not, then we think this would be a kind of waste in resources. This is not only unnecessary but also unfair. This is also the position I made clear in a recent meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services on the issue of helping elderly non-recipients of CSSA.

On that day some elderly folks who came to attend the meeting under the leadership of some unionists were unhappy about my objection to the proposal of requesting the Government to implement a universal retirement protection scheme immediately. They booed at me. I think they did not understand the issue and the arguments put forward by me. They failed to tell whether the proposed scheme was in fact sugar-coated poison or a lasting ─ I stress, lasting ─ panacea that could solve the problem of retirement for the old folks. According to what these people have in mind, of the 850 000 elderly people we have now, if only they are aged 65 or above, they will get an old age pension of $2,500 a month regardless of whether they are rich or poor and whether they really need it or not. There is no need to go through any means test. If this is the case, our expenditure on this old age pension will be $2.1 billion a month or $25.5 billion a year.

The problem then is: Where does this large sum of money come from? As suggested in the proposal, a contributor of mandatory provident fund (MPF) will have half of this contribution put to this use. In other words, half of the MPF contributions made by the younger generation will be gone in no time. Will this be fair to them? On top of this, if they are compelled to support the old people who are no relations of theirs financially, should they not at least be consulted beforehand? The middle class people are those who pay the most tax and make most contributions to MPF schemes. This year they can expect no cuts in salaries tax and now their MPF benefits are being robbed. Who will care for them and listen to what they have to say on this?

With the constant ageing of the population, pressure is mounting on the young people as they have to support the elderly financially. Most of us here are parents, some of us have even been upgraded as grandmas-in-law or grandpas. As seniors, do we care to see the burden on the shoulders of our younger generation get heavier and heavier? It follows that we must study closely this egalitarian approach to addressing the problem of population ageing. The Liberal Party holds that this egalitarian approach is not feasible in coping with the problem.

On the other hand, we should first study and devise some policies or mechanisms and try to find out how many among the 690 000 elderly people who are not on CSSA are really living in poverty and need more assistance from us. The Liberal Party thinks that the Government should study into the related policies to determine whether there are 100 000 or 200 000 old people among the 690 000 old people who do not get any CSSA are leading a poor life. It does not matter if there are 100 000 or 200 000 people, if only they are genuinely living in poverty, the Liberal Party will buy the idea that more help should be given to them, even to the extent that an amount of more than the proposed $2,500 a month be given to them. But if these hundreds of thousand people do not have such a need, and if after a means test, it is found out that they have the means to look after themselves, then we would think that the Government should not hand out money to them regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

Madam President, I so submit.